Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Fattom23 t1_j9uzlyc wrote

The fact that this article talks about the building and doesn't even mention the parking once. Ignoring that aspect is a good step toward denormalizing the idea that every building must provide parking.

75

dandykaufman2 t1_j9w2d1k wrote

It’s funny how people in NY say every building should have affordable housing units and everyone here says they should all have parking

21

Fattom23 t1_j9w46gj wrote

I've got my days that I just can't wrap my brain around the strangeness of insisting that nothing can be built unless it offers a ton of places to store your private property when you're not using it. This is one of those days: I really can't understand why people demand free abundant storage space for their stuff and then insist homes can't be built because it will interfere with that.

9

espressocycle t1_j9wxhzg wrote

Because a lot of people need cars because commuting to anywhere but Center City by SEPTA is very difficult. They live in houses without parking in neighborhoods with no paid parking lots and know what an apartment without parking is going to result in a lot of new residents who also have cars. You could, of course, solve that problem with permit parking that residents of the apartments can never be eligible for. That's not something we do but we totally could. A less draconian idea would be to grandfather in current residents or even houses to the current ridiculously cheap permits and make any new ones or ones associated with new apartments significantly more expensive.

10

Fattom23 t1_j9z327b wrote

I follow all that (I commuted for four years to Blue Bell with no car). But the only way your parking can be guaranteed is if you park on your own property. My house didn't come with a parking space (which wasn't a surprise to me, because I have eyes), so I park on the street, same as everyone else. But it would be ludicrous for me to expect other people to not build homes because I need to be sure I can continue to park my car on the public street with no issue. Street parking belongs to no one (not even homeowners, long-time residents or those who own traffic cones).

I stand by my original point that our plans for where to house people should take no account whatsoever of where anyone is going to store their car when they're not using it. People will either find a place or make other arrangements.

3

dandykaufman2 t1_j9z3h0s wrote

Exactly. Just bc you “reverse commute” or something doesn’t mean we have to design for that current use. Let’s density and then you can figure your shit out. Maybe you’ll have to move to the burbs if you wanna work there.

2

espressocycle t1_ja0lmp4 wrote

Sure, people live in a neighborhood all their lives then some yuppies discover it and they have to move? Why not just ban new apartment residents from parking? If density is so great and nobody needs a car then people will be lining up to live in apartment buildings that do not come with the option to park on the street. And no, reverse commuting is impossible in most cases because there's no transit near the office parks. Hell just getting between neighborhoods in Philly without going through Center City is a pain in the ass.

0

dandykaufman2 t1_ja0qw7q wrote

So on what time scale are neighborhoods supposed to change if the can’t in one persons lifespan??

2

espressocycle t1_ja6nj8n wrote

I just told you how to change them. If you want to build up density to create a car-free utopia then ban the residents of new buildings from parking on the street or make their parking permits reflect the actual value of parking. It's really that simple. I always see urbanists insisting apartment buildings don't need on-site parking because everybody will take the bus or ride their bikes. If that's really true, then why are they allowed to get parking permits?

1

espressocycle t1_ja0l0ub wrote

Yes but if you keep allowing more people into the neighborhood with cars it becomes impossible to ever find a spot. I'm all for increasing density, but out of fairness to the people who already live there, there has to be some way to make sure that new apartments without parking don't bring more cars to the area. I mean people always say "the location has great transit, it doesn't need parking" but if that's true, don't let people who move there have parking permits.

2

Fattom23 t1_ja0mfvs wrote

>if you keep allowing more people into the neighborhood with cars it becomes impossible to ever find a spot.

That's absolutely true, but the solution isn't to force new construction to provide parking; that gives an unfair subsidy to people who have lived in the neighborhood longer (and choose to own one or more cars). They've been able to store their stuff in the street for essentially free for decades, and everyone who lives in the neighborhood has an equal moral right to the free property storage (even if they just moved in yesterday).

Let builders build what they believe they can profit from, and manage the parking separately. Either increase the cost of a parking permit until you get the number of cars that street parking can sustain (the capitalist solution) or implement a lottery and tell people who lose that they just aren't allowed to park their car on the public street (my preferred solution, but politically untenable).

In terms of "fairness to the people who already live there", the sooner we lost this idea that their house came with guaranteed free and convenient parking the better.

2

espressocycle t1_ja6nw6h wrote

I didn't say force developers to build parking I said don't let the residents of new developments park on the street.

1

Fattom23 t1_ja7fjtg wrote

So those who already own houses get preferential treatment over everyone else? It's like US housing policy in microcosm; it has a certain elegance to its unfairness.

1

espressocycle t1_ja7ial5 wrote

Why is that preferential treatment? It's just letting them keep the parking availability associated with the density of their neighborhoods before someone decided to build apartment buildings after 150 years of nothing but rowhouses. Besides, parking is always the issue that makes people fight development, so take that off the table and it will be way easier to turn rowhouse neignhoods into higher density. Again, if it's really true that apartments don't attract car owners this will be win win for everyone.

1

Fattom23 t1_ja7r3dj wrote

We're obviously not ever going to agree on this, but there are words for people who demand benefits from the public stock for themselves that they deny to others and they aren't very flattering.

1

dskatz2 t1_j9xtl2d wrote

NY has an incredible public transit system. Philly does not. Cars are far more of a necessity here than in NYC. This sentiment isn't surprising.

6

mustang__1 t1_j9z0lzq wrote

Maybe if our subways and the el weren't shit and piss piles, ran more frequently, and ran to further locations, we wouldn't need a fucking car as much in this city. If I took the train to work it'd have to be regional rail - despite still being in the city. I'd get about a mile and change from work - and easy bike ride..... But no sidewalks lna death defying road to bike on. So I live somewhere with parking and reverse commute every day.

3

dandykaufman2 t1_j9z2cil wrote

That does suck for you, for real. Just wonder if cities should be built for “reverse commuters”. Doesn’t seem like a good policy/design goal.

2

mustang__1 t1_j9z4sza wrote

I mean.... Trains need to get downtown from where I work....

1

nowtayneicangetinto t1_j9vegx5 wrote

As some one that lives very close to this, I have to say, it's a mixed bag. Here's the deal as far as I see it.

If you plan on moving into Fishtown from this point on, don't plan on owning/ bringing a car. If you don't then you're fine. However, the reality is, a lot of people own cars and they won't see this being an issue until they have moved in and realize they are driving around for 45 minutes every night looking for parking. I see this happen all of the time and it leads to people parking in dangerous or illegal spots, because there is no parking.

I get the whole "the city should be for city people" but is this really a tangible reality? The demographic that Fishtown attracts are upper middle to upper class young singles or couples. Driving is indeed a luxury and those that can afford luxuries will want to keep them. So how does it work out that the same people that are being attracted are supposed to willingly give up one of their greatest and most beneficial luxuries? I know a decent amount of people in this immediate area and I can't think of an instance where at least one household who doesn't own a car.

4

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j9voaa9 wrote

This is a self-solving issue. People will bring cars, be upset by the hassle it is to have a car, and normal people will be like well what the fuck did you think was gonna happen, dipshit?

If they manage to build out this area without cars, with many small shops and restaurants, finish and connect the Rail Park, and build out better street car infra, increase service on the metro, and even in 5-10 years a new metro line that goes parallel to 95, that area would become a whole new “downtown” style of area by itself. There is so much space in Philly, this whole project could be really really great. I’m excited.

17

nowtayneicangetinto t1_j9vrq2v wrote

Is there such a plan for a rail line that follows 95?

3

tkdnw t1_j9vv21g wrote

No Unless they mean restoring the 15 to Port Richmond after work on 95 is done (a decade out from now)

6

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j9vxwgf wrote

No but there should be one. DC had had a lot of success building new metro rail that is just adjacent or parallel to their big highways.

2

Philitian t1_j9wdtkw wrote

It's absolutely tangible. Only 22% of households in Manhattan own a car, and it's one of the richest places in the country.

What's the solution? Further integrated cycling & transit networks, for one. If the MFL were even slightly cleaned up it would alleviate this significantly. If it didn't feel like a death trap biking through NoLibs down to Old City through the 95/676 interchange, way way more people would take up cycling.

It's an opportunity for car rental companies to market towards people that only desire occasional use of a car, and would rather sell their personal vehicle due to the hassle.

The long-term solution is to de-incentivize car commuting in NE Philly entirely by capping or reducing the capacity for 95, but we're a long ways away from that being a politically popular suggestion.

9

nowtayneicangetinto t1_j9x1e45 wrote

New York City proper is absolutely massive in comparison to Philly. It's like comparing the Earth to Jupiter. The amount of high paying jobs available to New Yorkers is far greater than Philadelphia. I tried to work in Center City but I couldn't find a job where I wasn't taking a pay cut, and the pay I found was much higher in the burbs. The truth of the situation is that a carless Philly isn't possible nor will it ever be in our lifetimes.

6

Philitian t1_j9x5lts wrote

It's always been a tax war with the suburbs & edge cities. They're still planning a rail extension to KOP. I'm not an economist, and I'm not going to argue whether the wage tax or the business taxes in Philly need to be cut to compete with the burbs, but I will say that the way these municipalities encourage businesses to locate their operations miles and miles from our population centers is appalling.

But one thing that I can speak with certainty of, is that the greater the professional labor pool there is within the city limits, the more employers will be incentivized to take advantage of it and seek more competitive candidates by relocating to the city. That can only come with continual investment in the city, regardless of the barriers.

I don't get why Philly people are so deprecating about this place. This city's seen such persistent development & job growth over the past decade, yet people still want to act like it's destined to stay in the gutter. It's weird.

7

mustang__1 t1_j9z15e0 wrote

I'd have to sell my home if 95 was kneecapped more. Or sell the business. I like living in south Philly, I don't want to live where our business has been for twenty years in ne. But hey.... Fuck me right?

1

Philitian t1_j9z3ndb wrote

It's not about giving the brunt to ordinary people like you. It's about actually implementing an equitable tax policy, where businesses aren't incentivized to center their operations way out on the edge of the metropolitan area. King of Prussia has a population of 22k yet it employs 60k jobs - mostly tech, media, and admin in the white collar sphere, nothing that couldn't be done in an ordinary hi-rise here in the city. It's insane that's even allowed.

Like I implied, we're a long ways from capping the highways. That's long-term, but the jobs need to move back here first, obviously.

1

mustang__1 t1_j9z4wur wrote

My business is still on the city, just ftr

1

Philitian t1_j9z60kt wrote

I don't get it, then. I've only ever worked in the city & I've always either biked or taken transit. If it's simply a matter of those types of infrastructure being improved, then it's a different discussion entirely. And yes - even if you need a vehicle for work, reducing the amount of traffic in the city will only benefit you.

0

mustang__1 t1_j9zaeu1 wrote

I don't get your point. I wasn't against expanding infra. I was against setting it up so you both can't use a car and can't commute to within city limits.

1

Philitian t1_j9ziw91 wrote

Urban highways primarily function to channel commuters to-and-from the city limits. If there were less of that exchange in commuting patterns, they would not be necessary. It's not about uprooting the car infrastructure entirely, but reducing traffic to the extent where it can flow effectively without these humongous blights diving our neighborhoods, spitting pollution onto its residents, and putting everyone at risk who needs to walk past their exits.

Highways ought to encircle a city's perimeter and terminate when they enter the city limits. The rest of the way, the traffic can move at speeds safe for pedestrians. Philly actually does this much better than most other cities in the US, but we should still make sure they don't expand further - otherwise, the only outcome is more displacement and urban blight.

2

respondstostupidity t1_j9wh3zh wrote

> Only 22% of households in Manhattan

We're. Not. Manhattan. I get that everyone new wants to turn us into New York, but it's not going to happen.

−4

Philitian t1_j9whya0 wrote

It's just a counterpoint to their suggestion that rich people will naturally want a car. I don't want Philly to be Manhattan either, trust me, that place is snooty, abrasive, and claustrophobic, but Philly can still be Philly with less of a car culture.

15

mustang__1 t1_j9z1c24 wrote

I mean if we had a solid and well connected subway that ran every 15min it'd be a different discussion....

3

respondstostupidity t1_j9wq9oo wrote

It's an inequivalent comparison because our needs are not the same.

−4

Philitian t1_j9wtjnb wrote

...we're both cities. Very similar ones, for that matter. We both need housing. We both need less cluttered streets and traffic jams.

6

respondstostupidity t1_j9wutss wrote

Vegans and non-vegans are both humans. Very similar ones, for that matter. We both need food.

Inequivalent.

−6

NotJoeyWheeler t1_j9wz751 wrote

funny example because vegans and non-vegans still have a ton of overlap with ingredients lol

6

respondstostupidity t1_j9x0zx5 wrote

Thank you for understanding that just because there are similarities, that doesn't make them the same thing.

I should know better than to try to have a discussion with someone who starts with a fallacious assertion by not recognizing that our cities have been influenced differently on a sociological and economical level.

−1

AugustusKhan t1_j9whjut wrote

I just tried visiting a friend Friday night for a big life event, we had to turn around n go home after stressfully driving for over a half hour.

There’s no parking, then there’s literally no parking hahah

1

XtremeStumbler t1_j9vcdxd wrote

I mean sure, but its literally stated in IBC 2018 that many new construction building types must provide parking

EDIT Philadelphia Code Section 14, not IBC

1

the_rest_were_taken t1_j9vec3e wrote

What part of the code are you talking about? I'm not aware of anything in section 14 close to what you're implying

3

XtremeStumbler t1_j9vfub7 wrote

Philadelphia Zoning Section 14-800 Parking Requirements

3

the_rest_were_taken t1_j9vin46 wrote

Ah okay found what you were talking about. Its a CMX 2.5 zoned lot which has a minimum parking requirement of 0 which is pretty typical for multifamily buildings of this size

11

XtremeStumbler t1_j9vjm0i wrote

Yea its completely dependent on the zoning of the lot and the occupancy type. My whole point to that person above was simply saying that unless you decide to file for rezoning, there are many instances where its not a choice at all on whether or not to provide parking

0

the_rest_were_taken t1_j9vks84 wrote

Its a minimum parking requirement. The builder absolutely could include parking in this design if they wanted to. Ironically, what you're talking about is what builders face when they don't want to shoehorn in excess parking required by parking minimums.

5

dandykaufman2 t1_j9umvcn wrote

HOW MANY OARKING SPOT

38

OnionBagMan t1_j9v40on wrote

Parking is dead. At this point it would be most healthy to accept the reality and adjust expectations as a result.

24

ShaneBowen t1_j9vdiri wrote

As someone contemplating moving into the city(from the burbs), I think this is the way to go. SEPTA has a shit ton of problems, but if we all a little more tied to it there might be more pressure on fixing them.

20

nowtayneicangetinto t1_j9vlcym wrote

They can start with enforcing the junkies who hop the gates and ride the subways all day long. Anyone who rides the El post pandemic will tell you how bad it's got with addicts shooting up on the train. I have seen a number of people just hop the gates in front of the ticket booth, seen by SEPTA employees, and just continue unbothered.

8

EddieDIV t1_j9vgrk1 wrote

Or it just gets more packed with people and with zero improvements to the infrastructure

Ninja edit: not saying this to be a dick, I lived here for 10 years, moved to the burbs in May, want to buy a house in the city now because commuting to work from the burbs absolutely blows so I’m in the same boat as you

3

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j9voxao wrote

It’s a multifaceted issue. Not just metro.

With more density, you have more demand for metro, yes. The above poster thinks that pressures from these residents could improve the metro. I agree with him but I understand your hesitations.

But there’s also two street cars lines here. That’s a significant mode of transit. Not to mention buses.

But more importantly, more density means that there is more likely to be things to do and places to be and stores to shop at within walking or biking distance, which means you won’t need to depend on the Metro as much anyway.

It also means the surrounding areas will get the second-hand-smoke benefit of improving just because they either use the land to make money off of the new population, or the sell it to someone who will, which means the nice and enjoyable areas increase in size, compounding the above point.

This can all be guided by good zoning practice. Parking is only part of the equation if the math is how to trend towards 0 parking spots in this neighborhood.

3

nowtayneicangetinto t1_j9vkv8h wrote

It would be, but I will believe it when I see it. I'm not sure if you live around Fishtown, but there is a beer store and Dunkin Donuts that has a sizeable parking lot right on Girard. In the 10 years I've lived here, people have never used it for personal parking until recently and it's steadily growing. That parking lot is now usually lined with cars of people who park there who are not patronizing those stores.

4

OnionBagMan t1_ja1i7mo wrote

That dunkin is about to get ripped down and turned into a complex I think.

2

nowtayneicangetinto t1_ja1rxo1 wrote

Yeah you're right, more housing something like 50 units? There's multiple complexes going up all within a block right there.

1

BacksplashAtTheCatch t1_ja6dx2z wrote

Bathe sugar house lots across the street are always half empty. Plenty of parking in this area for 1000 new units of housing without adding it to new construction.

1

Squirrelous t1_j9v0q3o wrote

if they’re not building parking into the basement of this thing imma be so mad

−5

nowtayneicangetinto t1_j9vieio wrote

They won't and it's going to add to the inevitable furthering of the South Phila-fication of Fishtown. The best bet is that you sell your car and stick to the public trans of the city.

4

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j9vp849 wrote

every time they do something out of the box it looks like subversive dogshit. This building is beautiful. Not garish nor gauche, perfectly balanced, subtle, pretty, clean. Not an ugly bold-colored 5-over-1, not a glass rectangle. You couldn’t ask for a better building. At least, considering all other modern architecture.

6

Obbz t1_j9uea16 wrote

I'm not sure I'd call that lot "blighted" per se, it's frequently used by SEPTA for their vehicles. But I'm glad more development is happening down there.

35

the_rest_were_taken t1_j9vgxdq wrote

A lot of the comments in this thread are nuts lol. This is a good looking building with the types of details that make for a high quality design. The city would be better off with this exact building going up in every neighborhood. Also, its literally attached to a public transit line and across the street from an acre of surface parking lots. Do those of you who are obsessed with parking even look at the building before commenting?

23

internet_friends t1_j9vlctl wrote

new build in fishtown? no time to read any details, need to go right to the comments section and/or my local facebook group to rant about how I'll never be able to park again

17

the_rest_were_taken t1_j9vngdt wrote

Right? Its only technically in Fishtown too. That section on the other side of 95 is so different from the rest of the neighborhood

5

internet_friends t1_j9vnvnh wrote

sorry I didn't have time to see where the build was I immediately had to complain about it on facebook instead

​

/s

6

nowtayneicangetinto t1_j9vlnzm wrote

Surface parking lots? You mean the two Fillmore parking lots? That's paid event parking. There's the Sugar House parking lot but that's not public parking.

0

the_rest_were_taken t1_j9vokod wrote

Yeah I was talking about the Rivers parking lots that are open 24/7 and free to park in (technically only for Rivers customers but still). I was more so commenting on how this section of the city is more parking lots than it is people so acting like this building has the same parking needs as the rest of Fishtown is ridiculous

3

Skyyywalker215 t1_j9ui5b4 wrote

Way too bland. I would love to see a large developer do something outside the box with one of these projects.

13

Welico t1_j9uw3ly wrote

I agree it's not the best, but it's a pretty small lot. At least they left room for some green space.

8

harbison215 t1_j9v5l9t wrote

Remember when rocky ran down that area there was nothing there. Ironically, the population do the city was bigger in 1970, 1920 etc. I wonder what was a better quality of life, larger household and more overall open space, or smaller households and no where for people to live.

7

Atomic786 t1_j9zz9nd wrote

I think the new builds have way too much space personally. There has to be a middle ground, you have professional couples with no kids living in four floor mega row homes with roof decks like - what do you do with all the spare bedrooms?

0

espressocycle t1_j9wwibh wrote

That's a really handsome building and very well suited to the location. If only one could say the same of so many other projects that are hideous, gray and completely out of scale with their surroundings.

3

FormerHoagie t1_j9x0g1v wrote

I really like this project and I assume any parking lot that’s near the MFL will become a multi-story dense residential building. There aren’t that many left below Lehigh that don’t already have a plan. I used to live on York near Front and I barely recognize it now. A tiny 650sq/ft shell is now priced around $150k. 10 years ago you could buy that for $40k

If I were a young person looking for a home I’d really consider Kensington, Harrowgate and Frankford. Fishtown is running out of developable land and it’s inevitable that the boom will proceed along the MFL. I recently became aware of the development in Harrowgate. I popped into Caphe Roaster and the block surrounding it is amazing. Homes are dirt cheap in the area now but won’t be much longer. Yes, I know….drugs and crime. Harrowgate and most of Frankford aren’t that bad. You just have to have a 10 year vision. When I first moved from Old City to East Kensington, 15 years ago, it was also really bad. Sorry, I’m off on a rant that’s way beyond the article.

3

mustang__1 t1_j9z1ont wrote

Good. A building that looks like Philly. Not those cheap ass siding slab sided crap they're throwing up along the river and on wash and broad.

3

manningthehelm t1_j9usequ wrote

The structural design looks like it’s from the late 80s. Mid af.

2

icedoutskimaskszn t1_j9w0b3q wrote

This one isn’t awful looking.. but still pretty uninspired. Could you imagine seeing a design that involves ornate stonework? I think I’d die.

2

thecoffeecake1 t1_j9wzwmj wrote

Let's see if they can finish it before the housing market completely collapses in on itself

2

Past_Cartographer230 t1_j9ya4ra wrote

FYI you can park at the casino across the street for free. They have tons of space and don’t care

2

[deleted] t1_j9uz1gq wrote

[deleted]

−5

dandykaufman2 t1_j9v1a35 wrote

We’ll the theory is these are priced the highest of anything and then down the line the rowhome off the Main Street with the drafty windows won’t charge as much. Also that neighborhood and Philly is growing so you have to account for increased demand. Maybe rent would have gone way higher than it even has without the new units.

10

[deleted] t1_j9v39ki wrote

[deleted]

−3

dandykaufman2 t1_j9v4rtg wrote

A house will only sell for 400k if someone buys it for that much. That’s the demand part. Building it isn’t what made it sell for 400k. Then the house next door that’s not removated yeah now they know with up to date renovations they could sell close to that. But the house next door selling for that didn’t raise the prices for everyone. It was jus price discovery. (Putting aside if the house took up the place of an empty lot or blighted property.)

5

dandykaufman2 t1_j9v53jo wrote

The buyer is not like Whoah it never occurred to me to pay 400k for a house LFG!!

5

[deleted] t1_j9v9tak wrote

[deleted]

0

dandykaufman2 t1_j9vatsp wrote

And so how does that info affect whether we should build housing in Fishtown? More people want to live in Fishtown and Kensington than in 2016, which was seven years ago. The landlord will get less in rent than they would without this building and other units that have been built.

3

apatheticwhiteguy t1_j9v25la wrote

I would imagine the units already existing around the new construction will have to lower prices to compete with fancy new apartments. Also yes, fishtown is a desirable place to live, that will be priced in.

5

OnionBagMan t1_j9v4j3t wrote

Do you think it would help if some of the units were required to be below market?

1

Gabagoo44 t1_j9vnhtq wrote

Building looks terrible fire the architect.

−6

CPUsports t1_j9vbcyl wrote

Glad for the development but that is a very un-Fishtown looking structure.

−8

seeyouinhelenkellers t1_j9vub66 wrote

People from NY are gonna loooove overpaying to live there

−8

[deleted] t1_j9uarh1 wrote

[deleted]

−19

apatheticwhiteguy t1_j9ubha9 wrote

Sucks that you need a car in the transit desert that is fishtown. If only there was like a train, or a bus, or something?

31

[deleted] t1_j9ud859 wrote

[deleted]

24

apatheticwhiteguy t1_j9ukp6p wrote

And so attracting more people with cars to your neighborhood that is already congested is a good idea?

14

OnionBagMan t1_j9v5kxw wrote

Yeah he probably thinks a parking garages would reduce traffic or something. Also Fishtown was never meant to be a suburban car town that people commute from. People used to walk to the other side of Front and work in the factories.

With things like WFH I do not think Fishtown should be trying to attract car owners as residents. I’d rather more business density to offset the need to travel outside the hood.

9

owenhinton98 t1_j9vedyo wrote

I tried to start leaving my car at my moms house 20 miles away in the suburbs, and honestly it’s been working great. Luckily I don’t have a job that requires one at the moment (but there’s a chance I do end up getting such a job in the near future so it may change) but living in fishtown and only using septa and sidewalks has been going well thus far.

It would definitely nice to densify business around the neighborhood a little more, it would be nice to not have to either walk 7 blocks or take a 2 minute $2 bus ride every time I had to get groceries or go to a drug store; otherwise I can’t complain and I implore other car owners/users in fishtown to try this if you have the means. You may find it pays off well 🤷‍♂️

3

patchworky t1_j9uieta wrote

Bro is being a dick for no reason. I live in the area and don't own a car and even I know how horrendous parking is

23

OnionBagMan t1_j9v52da wrote

We are in a densely populated city where perhaps cars aren’t important?

We’ve been learning for the past few decades that building more parking and roads doesn’t help the downtowns of cities. Parking sucks in Manhattan but who cares? This isn’t Atlanta after all, it’s a pedestrian city.

9

patchworky t1_j9vcj3l wrote

Look, I am not arguing that everything should be car-centric, I don't own a car myself because I much prefer to walk and use public transportation. But I think anyone who lives in Fishtown can readily admit that parking is fucking horrendous. There aren't even any paid publicly available garages anywhere near me, like I don't need everything to have amazing parking but it is pretty frustrating when I want to have friends over and I have to tell them to park 20 minutes away.

3

mdperino t1_j9uhmm4 wrote

Sucks that public transit doesn’t reach up the same corridor of 95 to get to my office :)

−2

owenhinton98 t1_j9uuzdk wrote

Not to be that guy, but literally the entire 95 corridor within pa is covered by septa routing, whether the Amtrak line (which carries two septa rail lines) that follows 95, or the plenty of city and suburban bus lines that roughly run along 95(/295) all the way from claymont to Trenton (and then dart Delaware and nj transit continue along said 95 corridor from there)

You most likely could take septa to work, it just might take a little longer

8

nowtayneicangetinto t1_j9vfjaj wrote

For me to get to my office by car takes 40 minutes, to get there by SEPTA would take 1.5 to 2 hours including a paid interchange in a less than friendly area, early in the morning. The associated costs and the time spent are not worth it.

2

hitplay225 t1_j9uyea1 wrote

"parking in the area" = free readily available parking within a block of where you live. The city/ housing shouldn't suffer to ensure drivers are never inconvenienced.

19

dandykaufman2 t1_j9un3ma wrote

Maybe the neighborhood will attract more people who don’t have cars.

17

215illmatic t1_j9veaf5 wrote

I live 3 blocks from here. I find a spot in front of my house (well on the same street) 90% of the time I get home and the furthest I’ve ever had to park is maybe 3 blocks. Get a permit and you’re fine

3

GoldenMonkeyRedux t1_j9uejel wrote

It's going to be a real issue. I used to head over to Standard Tap for an easy meal with my family, and now it's a good 20 minutes of driving around waiting for a spot to open while we're all getting increasingly annoyed. In other words, we don't do it anymore.

(We're coming from W Philly).

−5

DonQOnIce t1_j9unrf3 wrote

Try Septa (or don’t if Standard Tap isn’t that important to you).

3

GoldenMonkeyRedux t1_j9uxh35 wrote

Sure, instead of a nice diversion for the family after work, I'll collect my child from their after-school activity, attempt to coordinate with my spouse, meet up randomly at a junkie/piss-filled station, and take three different SEPTA vehicles to get to an area where we can all walk blocks and blocks to eat burgers.

What kind of a bubble do you live in?

−10

DonQOnIce t1_j9uxsdb wrote

Damn, you sound pressed. I live in a bubble where I see families on Septa all the time. Like I said, don’t if you don’t want to.

10

William_d7 t1_j9vj9mj wrote

I’m pretty convinced the vast majority of the “just walk/bike/Septa everywhere” posters don’t have kids, take care of elderly relatives, have a physical disability, work a job that requires tools or supplies, regularly need to travel an hour+ long Septa route (excluding RR), have hobbies that require equipment or aren’t close by, etc.

Walk/bike/Septa is a much easier lifestyle if everywhere you want to go is reasonably close to a stop and when you’re young, single, with all the time in the world.

Once you have the sunk costs of a car that you need for any such reason it’s hard to justify spending time, money, and psychic energy on bringing a large family somewhere by Septa.

Or maybe some people really do like to stretch a 25 minute round trip car commute into a 2+ hour odyssey?

Anytime you do present a logical reason for needing or wanting a car, expect a “why don’t you just move to the suburbs?” reply.

−2

DonQOnIce t1_j9vkz8m wrote

There are plenty of logical reasons to have a car but not always an excuse for using it for every single thing you do living in dense a city. “Try septa” is not a ridiculous response to someone who just wants to have a meal in Fishtown coming from West Philly and didn’t indicate any mobility issues.

4

owenhinton98 t1_j9xd9hr wrote

Even conservative nimby people in the suburbs take septa in with their families, my dad is the worst kind of trumpy and he comes from an area that never has nor will ever see a transit system or even Amtrak/greyhound service, but even he always would take my siblings and me into the city via septa instead of driving, while we were very young I might add. If snotty suburban people can take their kids on the train, families in the city certainly can.

2

William_d7 t1_j9zi7hr wrote

Hey, my dad took us to the city on the train too. From much of the suburbs going to Center City it’s clearly the easiest way. I even made an exception in my post for Regional Rail because it’s not a totally unpleasant shitshow like the MFL.

However, that’s not something we ever did if we wanted a quick dinner after school like the thread starter was talking about, rather a special occasion, all day downtown kind of thing (I suspect it would be the same for your family).

OP is saying he’d like to spend $$$ at a local business in the short time available after school and before bedtime but that increased density in that area has turned an easy 15 minute drive into a 10 minute walk+10 minutes on a train platform+20 minutes on the zombie train+10 walk and then do the same thing on the way home. Frankly, if you had kids you’d realize how daunting that is.

That’s business a place like Standard Tap could use midweek but could lose out on because of a lack of comprehensive city planning.

0

owenhinton98 t1_j9zkd22 wrote

I wouldn’t exactly call densifying and urbanizing “lack of comprehensive city planning”…if the casualty of this is a more transit- and pedestrian-friendly area, then so be it. You simply can’t live in a city and expect everything to be accessible by car; it’s a give and take

1

owenhinton98 t1_j9vez48 wrote

The el will get ya there from west…so will the 43 bus and 15 trolley/bus. The first mistake anyone visiting fishtown/NoLibs makes, is not using septa (or even driving to septa and sept-ing the rest of the way).

3